Will Fallout 4 be better than Star Wars: Battlefront?
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that Fallout 4 will do better, both in reviews and sales, than Star Wars: Battlefront will
Good Luck to you!
1- Battlefront has an arguably better legacy.
2- Fallout and other Bethesda games are often broken on launch
3- I have not yet seen one piece of marketing for Fallout 4. I have seen many for Battlefront.
My opening statement is the following:
Whilst both of these games should be incredible, I believe that Battlefront will overall do better than Fallout 4. Both are big name franchises, but people are more likely to remember Star Wars: Battlefront 2, a classic of the PS2 era. EA is better at marketing than Bethesda is. This can be sign purely based by how many commercials you will see as you are on YouTube, Twitch, TV, etc. Finally, may I remind everyone about Skyrim? That game was quite buggy, and generally broken on launch. Battlefront has had a Beta that has been concluded. This will help the game be technically sound. And to add an extra point, Fallout is trying to be something huge. This often means that some features will take the shaft due to lack of money or time to develop the game. Battlefront is one thing and one thing only, a FPS online shooter. Thus, Dice will have more time to perfect this one element than Bethesda Softworks will to perfect the many elements of Fallout 4.
Looking forward to this debate, and best of luck to you as well!
-While EA is a bigger company than Bethesda, some of its games that it has produced in recent times have received criticism (The Sims 4) As well as being criticized of a lack of innovation in their games (Madden, NHL, FIFA) As well as things such as forced multiplayer in many of its new games (Sim City) Causing the public to look at EA games with more and more weariness.
For more on that, simply type this into Google
'Why people hate EA? Ten simple reasons.'
(sorry i couldn't get a link.)
-While Skyrim had several bugs and glitches at launch, it is important to note that many of those bus and glitches were fixed after a few weeks, and even then, the only reason that it had so many glitches was because it was so innovative, It had combined and/or improved on nearly all the aspects if RPG elements that fans of that gene loved, and, according to reviewers (and myself, for the record.) they did a pretty good job of it as well, they had scored a 9.5 for it by IGN and several other reviewers had scored it at an average of 9.3, as well as winning awards such as;
-VGX Award for 'Best RPG'
-VGX Award for 'Studio Of The Year'
-Satellite Award for 'Best Role Playing Game.'
-Kerrang! Award for 'Best Video Game.'
There are also several other good games in Bethesda Library that make it the honored game studio it is, such as;
-Fallout 3 (9.6, IGN)
-Fallout; New Vegas (9, IGN)
-TES Online (7.8, IGN)
With an average score of around 8.5 (ish) thats a good reputaiton Bethesda has going for it.
-Also, lastly, i would like to point out that, while several aspects of the SWBF Beta were good, others wernt, citing criticism of things such as oversight and even laziness from some reviewers, see;
And yes, Fallout 4 does not have a beta, but how could you beta test Fallout without actually playing the whole game? It is innovating on several different things in the Fallout universe, such as;
-Customization of Power Armor
-100 base weapons, with 700 variations of those weapons
-Crafting system for weapons attatchments
-Completely revamped skill tree
-Fully real-time dynamic base-building
-Conversation cinematics (Granted, most likely inspired by Mass Effect)
And more we don't know about yet
Also, i would argue that Fallout is more recent, and thus, more fresh in the public's mind, and also did extremely well with the games they put forth beforehand (As did Battlefront.) However, since the Fallout franchise is more recent, and because its reputation in that recent time has been so good, it will be bought largely on trust of the franchise, as well as all the new features promised, rather than simply hoping the game is as good as it was 10 years ago (under a different publisher and studio, mind you.)
Thus, Bethesda has presented several new features to a game already bristling with them, promoting more longevity, and more enjoyability, and thus, more of your moneys' worth out of the game.
And don't get me wrong, I have Pre-Ordered SWBF as well as Fallout because I am a huge fan of the movies and game franchise, but I believe that because of these points (and more, to be discussed later.) that Fallout 4 will simply do better at launch sales and in reviews.
I acknowledge your quoting of Bethesda's awards, and respectfully say that I can't find any rewards for Dice's most recent project Battlefield 4. So yes, Bethesda does arguably have the better critical acclaim in the past.
The features you have listed will indeed help Fallout 4. However, some of these features have been limited or not present in a Bethesda game before. Examples of these include base-building, full character voice acting, and 700 weapon variations. When a company attempts something for the first time, there is a chance that it will not succeed. I would mainly like to focus on voice-acting. This is something that, when announced, stirred up controversy among the die-hard Fallout fans. This is something that could easily fail and cause a massive stir-up in the Fallout community. I would also like to question the voice actor himself, Brian T. Delaney (in the male case). Whilst looking at his IMDB page, I do not see any roles that really can stage up to the scale that the Fallout 4 lead role possesses. 
My next point is review scores. The MetaCritic scores, which are compilations of various reviewers for a specific game, have gone down every Fallout since 3. 3 scored at 91, whilst New Vegas scored at 84. Let's compare this to Battlefield. Battlefield 3 scored in at 89, right under Fallout 3, and five points higher than New Vegas. Battlefield 4 scored in at 85, which, while six lower than Fallout 3, is one higher than New Vegas. DICE's Battlefield series also only went down four points between games, whilst Fallout dropped seven points.
As for your last point, I would like to counter it with a new point of my own; hype. I would like to cite this article for the following argument.  This article is about why over-hyping a game can be a bad thing. Whilst it's source may be one that is lesser-known, the points made in this article are valid and prove good points as to why over-hype can lead to a massive disappointment. Any respectable gamer, and even some who aren't, can see that Fallout 4 is easily the most hyped game in this decade. The amount of people begging and pleading for this game, tweeting Bethesda on Twitter, jumping on to any hints they can get, just wanting another Fallout was unbelievable. One might even compare it to the hype that would occur, if say, Half Life 3 was revealed. Fallout has that much hype, and if they don't deliver, it's GOING to bite them in the end. Take that as you will, but Fallout has a massive ceiling to reach, whilst Battlefront has less expectations.
My closing statement for this round is simple: Hype is a great thing, as it generates people buzzing about your game and drastically can increase sales. However, it sets reviewers bar's higher. I cannot see a reviewer of this game not factoring in their drastically high expectations into their review scores. Fallout 4 will hit big or die hard. Which one of those it ends up to be will ultimately determine how successful this game ends up being.
And to add one last part, I as well think both games will be amazing. I will be buying both as you have stated Pro. I just have a different view than most, and I am glad to be debating this interesting topic with you.
Anyways, there are a few points i would like to make and counter.
Firstly, while it is easy to see that Fallout 4 has a LOT of hype on its shoulders, there have been games in the past (Such as Fallout 3 and Skyrim, both by Bethesda) That have lived up to and have even surpassed the level of hype that they had carried, I remember getting on the hype train for both these games, and being more than pleasantry surprised with the amount of enjoyable gameplay and content they had to offer, the same was true with New Vegas, but that was a lesser-known title, one that I enjoyed, and was also still critically acclaimed (9/10 OXM) Thus, when people get on a hype train and expect the game to be everything it says it is. There have been times when people have cheered that it was everything it says it was and more, especially with Bethesda games.
Also, you made the point that when a game studio tries something different for the first time, that it will most likely fail, but look at examples of innovation within Fallout 3 Vs. Fallout New Vegas, and TES IV; Oblivion Vs TES V; Skyrim, as mentioned, both got critical acclaim and both got critical acclaim and great reviews. This is testiment to Bethesda being able to add things to a game but still make it just as much (if not more) enjoyable.
For more on this, see;
Also, I believe that in the presentations of Fallout 4 so far (As that's all we have to go on so far.) The innovations that they have presented to the Fallout universe look quite good and polished, and I beleive that they will do well for the fallout universe
For more on this; see:
(Little bit of Fallout 4 voice acting hidden in final video, for those who open the link and wonder why I linked a Fallout Shelter Video.)
As far as I can see, the voice acting looks good and polished, the base building looks dynamic and solid, and the weapons and power armor customization looks extremely rich and full of variety. As I said before, this is only previews of what could be in game (also, for the record, JETPACKS (had to put that in haha.) ) So there could be more than what they are showing us lurking around the corner, be it good, bad, or ugly. The same is true for Battlefront.
As I said before, Battlefront is being taken over by DICE, who, yes, have made wide-open, action-packed shooters in the past, have never made a Star Wars game, they have also made it quite clear that they have tried to bring the game away from the traditions of Battlefield gameplay, which, so far, with its newest release, (Hardline) Caught quite a bit of critisism, for the record.
For a good example of this criticism, see;
(I find that Joe is fair and honest with his points, and tries to voice both his and other peoples opinions, I would reccomend his channel to anyone seeking honest game reviews (AngryJoeShow)
But I digress
The point that I am trying to make above is that DICE is just as new to the world of Star Wars as Bethesda is to voice acting and base building (Other than the, admittedly, underwhelming (But still alright.) Hearthfire DLC for Skyrim.) Both games have only given us a taste of what is in store, both look promisingly fun to play, but, because both game studios are stepping into new waters, your point of Bethesda being new to the ideals presented in their game is just as true as DICE with Battlefront.
I have one final point I would like to make before wrapping up this debate; Pre-Order content.
Both games have levels of pre-orders, and both games I have pre-ordered already, however, I felt more compelled to buy the Fallout 4 Pip-Boy edition for $160 than i did to buy the Star Wars; Battlefront Ultimate Edition, I only had $235 at my disposal, so I bought the regular Star Wars; Battlefront, and the Fallout 4; Pip-Boy edition, and here's why.
Both games have heavy nostalgia factors behind them, I want to fly around in a TIE fighter shooting down X-Winds just as much as I want to blast baseball-bat wielding Raiders with a shotgun. (Or teddy-bear launching gun, now!) Because I grew up with the Star Wars movies and played all the Fallout and Star Wars Battlefront games that came beforehand, as stated earlier, I am a huge fan of both series and am looking forward to both; However;
In the first video I linked for Fallout 4, they say that they've built their very own Pip-Boy, and if you listen closely amongst all of the gasping and oo-ing, you can hear someone shout "How much is it!?" Not only did I laugh, but i realized I probably would have said the exact same thing, and when they announced that it would come with the collector's edition, by fanboy heart skipped a beat. I couldn't believe it, a Pip-Boy! I thought that Star Wars; Battlefront, woud have to do something just as good if not better to get my buy for their Ultimate Edition, but when I saw this video and looked at the content DICE put out for the Ultimate Edition, my heart sank
To see the video, click the link down below;
Rather than getting something cool like a Statue or a scaled-down version of Boba Fetts' helmet, It comes with;
-The season pass (that they haven't even told us whats in it, yet.)
-Ion Grenade (Unlockable in regular game, not exclusive).
-Ion Torpedo (Unlockable in regular game, not exclusive.)
-Han Solos' Blaster (Unlockable in regular game, not exclusive.)
-Two different character animations (meh.)
-Exact same case-art, except in a silvery tinge (once again, meh.)
-A copy of Star Wars; Battlefront
Wheras the Fallout 4; Pip-Boy Edition, comes with;
-Pip--Boy Display Stand
-Physical Pip-Boy Pocket-Guide
-Physical Vault-Tec Perk Poster
-Power Armor Collectible Metal Packaging
-A copy of Fallout 4
That, in my opinion, is more than worth my extra $40 compared to the Ultimate Edition.
I look forward to seeing Cons' rebuttal, and hope He, and everyone else watching this play out, has a nice day!
Fallout 4 does have a lot of hype, but one must agree that this game has more hype than anything else that a gamer has seen in recent memory. It's utterly insane to see the amount of people online and around the globe that are absolutely stoked for Fallout 4. The expectations are so high, SO HIGH, that if the game isn't a perfect ten, people are going to be disappointed. This being especially in a year where so much competition is existent which makes a game obsolete if it doesn't stand out in some way.
I'm not saying that Fallout 4 won't stand out, as it certainly will. I'm just saying that I believe the hype train at this point to be out of control. No matter what the final product is, some or most will most likely be disappointed. That is simply a matter of fact and logic.
Am I saying Fallout 4 is going to be bad? No, in no standard am I saying that. I'm just making the argument that no matter what, people are going to be disappointed. You link the forum discussions, which bring up valid points. Yes, games do progress technologically and in design over time. However, I would like to challenge Pro to come up with a list of improvements from Oblivion to Skyrim. I leave out 3 to New Vegas because they were made by different studios, Bethesda and Obsidian Entertainment (Pillars of Eternity, South Park: Stick of Truth). My point here being, I do not believe that from Oblivion to Skyrim that there were more features added than from the span of Fallout 3 to Fallout 4.
My second rebuttal is that trailers are the best of the game. Did Fallout 4 look amazing in this trailers? Yes, it certainly did. However, I must wonder if this will be representative of the final product. After all, this is from the same company that recently released popular mobile game Fallout Shelter. Despite Todd Howard saying that microtransactions would be for cosmetic purposes only, it seemed to show that you needed these lunchboxes to get items to make the game achievable. At the beginning, it was easy to get lunchboxes, as all the player had to do was a simple, menial task. However, as the game progressed, it became harder and harder to get these lunchboxes. As a by-product, the game became near impossible as a result. I link this article from Forbes to further my point.
Pro, you may ask why I am making this point. Well, I am making this point to question the integrity of Bethesda. Yes, it has been good in the post. However, is it still there, with a blatant lie when it comes to Fallout Shelter micro-transactions? Now, some may have not had this issue. However, for a person playing the game whilst not spending money, it seemed very hard to progress without these lunchboxes.
You also make a point about the criticism of Battlefield: Hardline. I do not like Angry Joe personally, as I think he is a bit of an egomaniac, but I have watched this certain video for the sake of the debate. Yes, DICE is new to Battlefront. However, DICE's last Battlefield is Battlefield 4. Battlefield: Hardline was actually developed by Visceral Games, whom are previously known for the Dead Space franchise. So, this point is essentially null and void, as while the games might be in the same franchise, they are made by two separate developers.
My final point is that, with all respect, a special edition really does nothing for the quality of a game. Just because Bethesda can produce a load of Pip-Boy replicas does it mean that Fallout 4 will be the better game. Do I agree with you that Fallout 4's Pip-Boy Edition beats the Star Wars: Battlefront Ultimate Edition? Absolutely, by all means necessary. However, I would like to argue that any special edition, no matter how much or how great it is, will not improve the sales of a game drastically. A special edition will most likely sell some of the hardcore fans, but it is unlikely to bring in the more casual video game fans.
My very last point will be said in a question that logic shall answer. Which is more likely to bring in casual fans; a post apocalyptic RPG, or a game with Star Wars in the title?
Now, Todd Howard did not actually lie (as far as your point in this debate goes, as I have never played Fallout Shelter) What Todd had said was that the only item you would need to pay for would be more lunchboxes, and that (according to your argument) Is the only item you have had to pay for so far, while the act of making the tasks of getting these lunch boxes is extremely difficult over time is, admittedly, a bit frustrating and would halt the game after a certain time unless money was shelled out, He did not lie, he just didn't give everyone the full picture.
Also, the point you make of the trailers possibly being the only parts of the game that are good might very well be true, however, the exact same point would apply to Star Wars; Battlefront. Also, like I had said before, the Beta that Star Wars; Battlefront, while great in some aspects, was supposed to be the big premier that would shock the world with it's quality, it was supposed to be the preview of some of the best game modes DICE has been working on, but, there were murderous complaints during the beta, granted, its in beta, its being developed, but if you plan on convincing 9 million people to buy your game, it needs to go through RIGOROUS testing in Alpha to make sure it is ready to go to make a fantastic impression at launch (which it did, in a few aspects (sound and graphics especially) But some of the CORE gemeplay mechanics were either broken, or were easily exploitable, as the Beta videos I linked above show, as well as the final 3 I have selected (2 of which were above, but they are thee top 3 on YouTube to talk about the issues.)
(The first 2 will be Angry Joe videos, if you do not like him or his content, you have been warned.)
While casual gamer's do like nice shiny graphics and good sound effects, they also factor in reviews for the content in those games before they make a purchase, and if the finished product doesn't even fix the spawn points from Walker Assault, than casual gamers might get turned off by broken mechanics.
I believe that Fallout 4 (as per the E3 trailers linked above) show multiple examples of everything bragged about by Bethesda, thus they are backed up as not just one-off things you can do, all of them looked polished, the graphics look good (even at places like the Xbox presentation, where they can't tweak the graphics settings.) And even if everything they trumped about in E3 is all that's in the game, i guarantee it will be at least a 8.5 to 9/10, and while that may disappoint to a degree, people will still enjoy the new features for a long time, because they breathe new life into a franchise people already loved.
Keep in mind as well, Con, that Fallout 4 is projected to be a 400 hour game, (Not even factoring in the multiplayer mode.) and Bethesda does not have a history about lying about its game lengths (I spent nearly 500 in the world of Skyrim) whereas Star Wars; Battlefront, will be mostly repetitive multiplayer matches spanning a limited number of planets that will undoubtedly begin to get a bit boring at the 100 hour mark, is the game still going to be enjoyable? Of course, i don't have a doubt that t will be extremely enjoyable, and i doubt I will regret buying it. But, because Fallout 4 will most likely have more hours of enjoyment, (especially with the new mechanics listed below, that make every playthrough different.) I feel that I will get more of my money's worth.
Fallout 4's new traits, are; (To list all of the one's off the top of my head, correct me if any of these are wrong.)
-Character voice acting and cinematics
-New character customization
-Completely Revised Skill Tree
-Completely Revised FPS and TPS Combat
-VATS is no longer an impromptu pause button, it only slows down time
-Real-Time House/Base building
-Able to set up turrets and lights (and use terminals to change certain traits of these.)
-Revised follower commands and uses
-Ability to romance EVERY (friendly) character in the game (unknown how far that'll go.)
-(limited) Helicopter combat
-Able to grow own food and set up own water wells
-Able to host Traders at your new House/Base
-Able to run 'Brahman Caravans' between your Bases
-Power Armor is now it's own separate suit of armor (not just regular armor that requires a Training Book.)
-Over 100 base weapons
-700 weapons that can be created from those base weapons
-The ability to play games on your Pip-Boy in the Wasteland
-Fully customizable Power Armor
-Layered Armor System
-Ability to Mod the game even on Consoles
-Pip-Boy app for Smart Phones
-And (Possibly) more we haven't heard of
I believe that these things will boost the sales of Fallout 4 dramatically, and (most) will boost review scores, making it possibly the Game Of The Year, even, because of the sheer amount of innovation brought to the table (all of this innovation we could see demonstrated looking quite polished and good.) And while these are things Bethesda have never done before, I believe that it will be easier to adapt these to a universe that they have had the reins of sine the first Fallout. As opposed to DICE, that have just now taken the reins of Battlefront after 2 successful games made by a different studio nearly a decade ago.
Also, to the frustration of many seasoned Battlefront players (such as myself.) That will most likely have a fair slice of sales statistics, DICE has removed some core features of the game that were fundamental in making the first two successful such as.
-Galactic Conquest- Gone
-Rise Of The Empire- Gone
-Space Battles- Gone (Replaced by a (arguably) lamer mode Fighter Squadron)
-Story Mode- Gone
All of these elements were Pillars that the first two games stood on, and now that they have been removed, the integrity of the game as a whole is now hanging in the balance. Will DICE get what they are doing right enough to save whats left? Or, will they crash and burn after a month of hype-sales.
And to that degree, you had mentioned that Star Wars; Battlefront had a lot of marketing behind it, whereas you didn't see anything for Fallout 4, not to mention the fact that 9 million people played the Beta. That means that it is quite likely that just as much, if not more, people are hyped for Battlefront as they are for Fallout 4, meaning that the hype train is chugging along just as fast and hard, if not more so, than Fallout 4's, Raising Battlefronts' expectations to very high levels as well, levels that I feel might not be achieved, thus leading to people still buying the game, but most casual gamers' putting it on the shelf after 10- 150 hours and not playing it anymore (or at least for a while.) While people are playing Fallout without it getting old well into 2016. At least, based on the facts so far, is my opinion.
If Star Wars; Battlefront is a better game and gets better reviews after all, then my hat will go off to you, And I wish you good luck in the voting period as well, My hope goes out to both game studios that they will make great games the live up to their predecessors and even surpass them. Best of luck.
On Fallout Shelter: I would like to state the definition of a lie. It is true that all definitions can be interpreted in different ways, but I will voice how I interpret Todd Howard's statement on lunchboxes. "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.", is the definition of a lie. Now, Todd Howard said that this is the only item you had to pay for. I personally watched Bethesda's press conference and I remember hearing Todd Howard tell us how this game wasn't going to be like other mobile games. I believed him, and I happily downloaded Fallout Shelter on my iPad. I played it for a week, and eventually just couldn't progress. The pay wall that I had been told didn't exist existed, just later on in the game. Hence why my trust in Todd Howard is lacking in this particular moment.
My next point will be the difference between a trailer and a beta. A trailer is something released for marketing purposes, to generate hype for a game. A beta, meanwhile, is a playable trailer in which the developer can generate hype and fix key technological errors. It may not have been good, but DICE is listening. The videos you linked to me, I wouldn't be surprised if DICE took into consideration what popular figures said and took it to improve their game. Also, it's a FPS game beta. In FPS's, guns are often very unbalanced. Play a Call of Duty game on launch and you will see just how bad it can get.
Fallout 4 does look pretty amazing from what we have seen so far. However, Ubisoft has changed my ability to be able to believe that everything in a trailer will make the final game. You can see Watch Dogs or Assassin's Creed Unity for examples of this. Whilst I'm not saying Ubisoft is Bethesda by any means, I am simply stating that there is always a chance that what we saw won't make it into the Fallout 4 that hits shelves. As for your 8.5-9 review guarantee, I definitely agree. Fallout 4 will most likely be amazing, but I do believe Battlefront can match any score Fallout gets. After all, if Halo 4 can get a 9.8 (or .9, can't remember) on IGN, anything can happen in the review industry.
And to your last argument, well, I have no argument. It's obvious that by looking Fallout has more features. This entire speculation on my part has been a truly gut feeling and consultation with other friends online. I proved all the points I wanted to make, and I strongly feel that whilst Fallout 4 will be good, it will be not as good as a finished Star Wars Battlefront.
Thank you for the debate, and I look forward to see how voting falls.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.